Tuesday, October 09, 2012

The Washington Nationals are playing in their first home playoff game since 1933, yet the only way to watch the game is through pay TV packages that have MLB Network. Moreover, the Nationals are playing in a publicly subsidized $600+ million stadium. MLB needs to do the right thing and air the game on local broadcast television so fans who can’t afford to go to the game or can’t afford expensive cable or satellite service can see history!

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Are the Nationals like the Cleveland Browns, where they inherited the history of an unrelated franchise with the same name? And if so, do they get the heritage of Senators II as well? Maybe Bernie Allen can throw out the first pitch.

Why is it a bad idea? Nothing is more likely to get folks to call their cable companies to demand MLB Network (or at least get it on a lower tiered package) than to prevent them from viewing a game they really, really want to see.

I don't have cable at all, so unless I get fascinated by the NLCS, I'm going to save my October TV baseball for the World Series on FOX (with the sound down, mind you).

I must be one of a tiny percentage of Americans with broadcast TV but without cable. As TFPetition notes, we're probably disproportionately poor (and hence not worth considering as a demographic to reach).

Are the Nationals like the Cleveland Browns, where they inherited the history of an unrelated franchise with the same name?

There has always been a franchise in Washington known as the Nationals. Surely you remember when Frank Howard was traded and they acquired Rusty Staub to be their cleanup hitter. Who can forget the great seasons Gary Carter and Andre Dawson had for the mighty Nats. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

Why is it a bad idea? Nothing is more likely to get folks to call their cable companies to demand MLB Network (or at least get it on a lower tiered package) than to prevent them from viewing a game they really, really want to see.

I think it's about 20 dollars a month for me to get that package, which I can't see many people paying for one game. And I don't think the cable companies will move it because of complaints. You're going to lose a lot more eyeballs than you're going to gain subscribers.

I think it's about 20 dollars a month for me to get that package, which I can't see many people paying for one game. And I don't think the cable companies will move it because of complaints. You're going to lose a lot more eyeballs than you're going to gain subscribers.

Mine comes as part of an expanded basic type package.

I think from MLB's perspective making MLBN a "go to" place is useful in the long haul. It's not that people are going to pay for one game but if they start to get the sense that more and more things are being broadcast on that station they will start asking for the channel to be more easily accessible. ESPN got some heat in the early days of ESPN2 for putting some big events on that station even though many people didn't have it. I have a recollection of a UNC-Duke basketball game being one of the biggies. Eventually ESPN2 got folded into more general packages.

You're going to lose a lot more eyeballs than you're going to gain subscribers.

I'd agree with that. But I also think the long term strategy to maximize profits from the MLB Network is to do something like this.

I'm not going to take the time to look this up (call me out if I'm wrong) but I'm quite confident that the NFL Network is available to a greater audience and in general is on lower tiered packages. NFL Network wasn't always that way but they really were able to get things moving when they granted tv rights to themselves instead of making the games more broadly available.

I was going to say you're wrong, but I looked it up and you're correct at least for AT&T. You have to go another tier up to get MLB Network. I wonder how much of that is that there's a game a week on NFL Network now, which amounts to ~6% of all games in the season.

Speaking of which, I don't understand how the networks haven't revolted over the Red Zone channel. I live in a 2 team market and couldn't care less about the local teams. So unless the Patriots are on, if I'm watching the NFL at all I have the Red Zone channel on in the background while I do other things, meaning CBS and FOX rarely get my eyeballs on the games they paid eleventy seventy chillion dollars for. I can't imagine I'm alone on that one.

The game is also inexplicably at 1 PM. I can find ways to watch games on networks I don't have, but there's absolutely no plausible way for me to catch a 1 PM game. I really don't know what the MLB gains from putting a game at 1 PM instead of just having multiple games on at the same time.

Are the Nationals like the Cleveland Browns, where they inherited the history of an unrelated franchise with the same name? And if so, do they get the heritage of Senators II as well?

The team generally celebrates baseball in Washington more than identifying with the Expos. I don't know that they directly claim the history of former DC teams, but there's certainly a tip of the cap to their predecessors here.

Wait a minute, am I understanding this correctly? This game is not on any local station in either Washington or New York? What's up with that?

A minority of people with low end cable packages don't get the MLB channel. I've got the second tier FIOS ("premium" without any special movie channels) and AFAIK that's had the MLB channel right from the beginning. This is obviously a war of nerves between MLB and the cable companies to see who will crack first.

The game is also inexplicably at 1 PM. I can find ways to watch games on networks I don't have, but there's absolutely no plausible way for me to catch a 1 PM game. I really don't know what the MLB gains from putting a game at 1 PM instead of just having multiple games on at the same time.

MLB tried that in 1995, and they were deluged with protests from viewers who understandably wanted to see all the games played, not just one. The obvious solution this time would be for MLB to allow a local broadcast channel to pick up its feed, but that would be an act of public spiritedness that baseball wouldn't even begin to consider.

MLB tried that in 1995, and they were deluged with protests from viewers who understandably wanted to see all the games played, not just one.

I don't really see how this is understandable. How many people are actually able to catch games at 1PM? I'd wager that it's less than the number of fans that want to see specific teams play and would rather be given the choice between two games at night. I suppose that would require the MLB allowing a local channel to pick up a feed though, which is clearly out of the question for some mindboggling reason.

I feel like local governments should carry a bit bigger hammer with this sort of thing when they put up huge amounts of money to cover stadiums. I'm OK with blowing $600 million on a stadium, but if a city's going to do that, the MLB doesn't get to treat their product as a purely private item; it's now in the domain of public interest.

I'm not going to take the time to look this up (call me out if I'm wrong) but I'm quite confident that the NFL Network is available to a greater audience and in general is on lower tiered packages.

On my cable system the NFL Network and MLB TV (or whatever it is) are both on the same higher tier. When the NFL Network first started it was carried as part of the basic package but was bumped into a higher tier after a few months. AFAIK MLB TV was part of the higher tier from the beginning.

I just checked for DirecTV and it appears that MLB TV and NFL Network are on the same package level. The NBA channel is on a higher package for some reason. Personally, I can't imagine going without the full sports pack though, and there's not much else on TV that I really care about (aside from Breaking Bad).

Word up. The amount of whining that goes on here in the wealthiest area of the country is just unbelievable.

Are the Nationals like the Cleveland Browns, where they inherited the history of an unrelated franchise with the same name? And if so, do they get the heritage of Senators II as well? Maybe Bernie Allen can throw out the first pitch.

Another sigh. I really do look forward to the eventual blessed day when we no longer have to keep rehashing out the whole Nationals/Expos/Senators thing, because frankly it's starting to get a little tiresome. Fifteen to twenty more years should do it, but I hope that it's fewer than that.

[27] The problem is there could be 4 games tomorrow or 2. They don't want to double up on games so they want each to have their own timeslot. If all 4 series are going, the Nats would have to be slotted at 1, just because of the 2 west-coast teams. So rather than wait until late tonight or tomorrow to decide, they just locked in the Nats at 1.

Either people would be upset that they'd have no notice, or they'll be upset at the start time.

First tier FIOS does not have a lot of things, including NFL network or MLB. It's about $20 a month more to go to second tier and since I don't really care about anything else they have on the second tier, I didn't buy it.....I can't watch the game tomorrow anyway since I am at work..I do wish I had it now.

And if the Reds and Tigers win then MLB has 1 game on at 1pm eastern time and 1 game on at 7:40. So the 1pm game is noon in STL and 10am on the West Coast. That is ideal? Then the only other game is on at 6:40 in the midwest and 4:40 on the West Coast, that is ideal?

Seems to me a 5:30, 6:00, 8:30, 9pm setup solves the problem.

Either people would be upset that they'd have no notice, or they'll be upset at the start time.

didn't the schedule that announced a 1pm start for the Nationals come out yesterday?

There are flags above the scoreboard for 1924, 1925 and 1933. Check if there are flags for those years at Target Field.

Next year there will at least be a 2012 NL East flag. (Or 2012 National League Champions or 2012 World Champions.) I don't think there will be a "We beat the Cardinals but got crushed by the Reds flag."

I really do look forward to the eventual blessed day when we no longer have to keep rehashing out the whole Nationals/Expos/Senators thing, because frankly it's starting to get a little tiresome. Fifteen to twenty more years should do it, but I hope that it's fewer than that.

I imagine in 15 to 20 years San Jose will be whining about the whole Nationals/Expos/Senators/Nationals thing.

I don't have cable at all, so unless I get fascinated by the NLCS, I'm going to save my October TV baseball for the World Series on FOX (with the sound down, mind you).

I must be one of a tiny percentage of Americans with broadcast TV but without cable. As TFPetition notes, we're probably disproportionately poor (and hence not worth considering as a demographic to reach).

I'm part of that insignificant group, too. I can't bring myself to pay for television, however entertaining some of it is. When the cable companies (or whoever runs the show in the future) let me pick and choose what I want to watch instead of sticking me with a hundred time-wasting channels, let me know.

I am super annoyed about the 1 pm start but I get why it is happening. Wish I didn't have to burn a vacation day though. Anybody need a ticket? I got an extra one since my wife can no longer come with me.

I streamed mlb.tv to my TV this year, with good picture results, though mlb.tv itself was unreliable compared to Extra Innings. Do others with mlb.tv stream to TVs, or is it mostly to computers? I ask because I've been experimenting being one of the "tiny percentage of Americans with broadcast TV but without cable," and I've found that the streamable content is more than I really need (e.g., the major pro sports packages except for the NFL).

I am super annoyed about the 1 pm start but I get why it is happening. Wish I didn't have to burn a vacation day though. Anybody need a ticket? I got an extra one since my wife can no longer come with me.

I might have three extra playoff tickets as well since the 1pm game has caused everyone I know to bail or not be able to go. I've got them up for sale on stubhub now at the cheapest price for the section but the 1pm game is really killing the market so I have no idea if they'll sell or not.

When the cable companies (or whoever runs the show in the future) let me pick and choose what I want to watch instead of sticking me with a hundred time-wasting channels, let me know.

It sounds like you're looking for DVR. It exists and costs around $5 per month on top of whatever your normal rate is. Most cable companies also have on demand versions of popular shows. Really, it seems like you're asking for features that the cable companies are currently offering.

Most cable companies also have on demand versions of popular shows. Really, it seems like you're asking for features that the cable companies are currently offering.

Except the cable companies make you buy a basic package first, and then bundle up a bunch of channels at various different prices, and pay for various different options just to watch some things when you want to watch them.

I believe he is asking for the ability to pay for only certain channels and options instead of having to spend 100 dollars or more a month on hundreds of channels he'll never visit.

One thing the NFL does right is put games involving the local team on broadcast TV if it's a network cable telecast. IOW, if the Broncos are playing on ESPN or NFL, during the game that network is blacked out here in Colorado and the game is shown on an over-the-air channel.

The NFL is pulling a game off of Sunday to put it on their network on Thursday. Fox and CBS spend billions of dollars every year to get highly rated content each Sunday. By pulling highly valued teams from Sunday and moving it to Thursday the NFL is greatly devaluing the value of their package in the eyes of Fox and CBS. If Chicago is on Thursday night that means Fox loses all of that revenue and eyeballs in Chicago that it would have had if the Bears were playing on Sunday. Letting Fox air the game locally maintains the value of the package to the broadcast companies.

When the NFL shows those games on a local channel, the local stations bid on the games. High bidder wins. In Pittsburgh normally the local CBS affiliate wins, but the Steelers' game on Thursday night is actually going to be on the local CW channel because all the network stations are showing the Vice Presidential debate.

The NFL is pulling a game off of Sunday to put it on their network on Thursday. Fox and CBS spend billions of dollars every year to get highly rated content each Sunday. By pulling highly valued teams from Sunday and moving it to Thursday the NFL is greatly devaluing the value of their package in the eyes of Fox and CBS.

And yet last year they both signed 9 year extensions at almost twice the price of the contracts they're on now.

- excuse you, mister
i am not going to a *()^*(ing BAR at 12 NOON.
i don't even know what the eff bar would be showing a baseball game at NOON - not around here when there's something exciting like golf or watching paint dry
i could carry a sign in 3 languages saying - do NOT bother me i am watching the ballgame - and i would still get harrassed

mlb network is not on standard cable here in houston. i have no idea whether or not the new astros rsn is even going to be on standard cable. we are sure as **** not paying extra for more channels.

this putting playoff games on an inaccessible channel is bullshpit.

mlb.tv sometimes runs fine, sometimes it doesn't - has nothing to do with the speed of your internet - sometimes, they just have effups with their broadcasts. my mama has a subscription so she can watch the cards. it's great for watching the rerun of the other teams' braodcasts, if you want. but live, it is a problem. i have also been told it is a serious problem at hotels, not sure why.

3. Aren't the Expos are the 1993-2001 Marlins? Or are the Red Sox the Marlins, and Expos the Red Sox? It's about as confusing as a local businessman owner abandoning his local club. In this case - two, Henry and the Expos' majority-turned-minority* owners.

* When they refused to respond to modest cash calls to invest in the club.

With 2,200 tickets still available, it could fall even further. Really, if you can make it to the game and don't mind standing, it's a hell of a deal at this point. I'm sorely tempted to blow off work, I'd just have to figure out how to schedule that.

The start time is frustrating to me, since I'm in China right now. I'm not geting up at 1 AM to watch this game.

Go to a bar.

At 1 PM on a Wednesday?

MLB tried that in 1995, and they were deluged with protests from viewers who understandably wanted to see all the games played, not just one. The obvious solution this time would be for MLB to allow a local broadcast channel to pick up its feed, but that would be an act of public spiritedness that baseball wouldn't even begin to consider.

Thank you, Andy, for finally mentioning the Baseball Network debacle -- which, as is so often forgotten, was Bud Selig's responsibility. Baseball fans were very frustrated when four games were played simultaneously that year and aired regionally. There was a pretty damning Sports Illustrated article about Game 2 of the Mariners - Yankees series, an incredibly exciting game that could have helped baseball immensely after the strike, and which was seen by a very small television audience.

I don't mind the early afternoon start times. After all, the entire postseason (World Series) was played at that time for decades. I don't mind having the division series games on cable, either, though that's mostly because I have cable.
However, I can remember being very upset when the NBA disallowed local broadcasts of playoff games a few years ago.

Of course, as baseball chick alluded to, this is bad for the game in general. It's kind of hard to make new fans when your premier product is on a premium cable channel.

Seems to me a 5:30, 6:00, 8:30, 9pm setup solves the problem.

If you have 4 television networks, maybe. With two, you'll run into a problem if that 5:30 game goes a bit longer. Plus, you're not guaranteeing the broadcasting network that theirs is the only baseball game in that timeslot.

Seems to me that going back to the two division setup with only 4 playoff teams solves the problem.

[T]he ability to pay for only certain channels and options instead of having to spend 100 dollars or more a month on hundreds of channels he'll never visit.

This is the real problem, and it reaches far beyond the realm of baseball.

If you have 4 television networks, maybe. With two, you'll run into a problem if that 5:30 game goes a bit longer. Plus, you're not guaranteeing the broadcasting network that theirs is the only baseball game in that timeslot.

TBS/TNT solves the problem of timeslot and MLBN can always carry a game until another one is wrapped up.

Are people really not willing to go to a bar at noon/1PM on a weekday? Assuming you don't have to be at work what's the big deal? No one is saying you have to get hammered. I rarely drink and I love going to bars. Get some apps, have a soda and watch the game. I find if you are friendly and tip well bartenders are cool with it.

Having said that people shouldn't have to go to a bar to see a game. It's possible that people under 21 might enjoy the game and they can't go to a bar and just generally if people want to stay home and watch the game they should be able to.

I don't really see how this is understandable. How many people are actually able to catch games at 1PM? I'd wager that it's less than the number of fans that want to see specific teams play and would rather be given the choice between two games at night. I suppose that would require the MLB allowing a local channel to pick up a feed though, which is clearly out of the question for some mindboggling reason.

I feel like local governments should carry a bit bigger hammer with this sort of thing when they put up huge amounts of money to cover stadiums. I'm OK with blowing $600 million on a stadium, but if a city's going to do that, the MLB doesn't get to treat their product as a purely private item; it's now in the domain of public interest.

Well, the games were played in the stadium that was built with all that public money. If you're arguing that the use of public money should dictate the scheduling of events in that stadium and the broadcast of those events to the local populace, wouldn't that allow more people to watch the game and possibly not fill the stadium. Or not.

Or do you mean that a private business has civic pride implications and as a sporting team and event, that civic pride takes precedence over all existing business contracts and dealings? Hard to say other than you want the game on TV so everyone can watch and not have to be inconvenienced in any way.

I don't really see how this is understandable. How many people are actually able to catch games at 1PM?

Call in sick. Your world won't end and your company won't fold. It's sure as hell a lot better for lots of other people (school kids) than games that end after midnight. "Think about the lawyers" isn't any more convincing than "think about the children".

And BTW if you haven't noticed it by now, the Nats' game 4 will start at 4:00 while the Reds begin at 1:00. And if the Nats-Cards goes to a fifth game, it'll be in prime time (8:30) while the Yankees-O's are set for 5:00. So it's not as if the Nats are being singled out for any particular sort of mistreatment.

In this case, the FCC is the villain. Cable companies aren't allowed to let you pick and choose what you want to watch, even if they wanted to.

I didn't know this. Pretty archaic of the FCC in this case. The internet model of paying one entity for bandwidth and another for content is much better. Cable and telco companies are extremely wrapped up in financing elected officials, so I am not confident that the best solution is the likely solution.

In this case, the FCC is the villain. Cable companies aren't allowed to let you pick and choose what you want to watch, even if they wanted to.

Someone with a better understanding of the business of cable can probably explain this but I have a sense that if we went to an a la carte model the price wouldn't change much, the options would. I would think the infrastructure of delivering cable requires a certain cost and that, not the channels themselves, is what is driving the pricing. Right now I have several hundred channels of which I watch about 20. If I wanted to select the 20 I watch and only those 20 what would the cost be per channel? I would expect it to spike making my cable package roughly the same cost it is today.

I think in my lifetime this model is going to come into vogue though. I think at some point we're going to see a total blend of cable and internet so that when I turn on my TV I'll simply be turning on my browser and if I want to watch Fringe rather than tuning to channel 508 I'll go to www.fox.com. I think the a la carte model will work then with certain channels requiring log ins and the ultimate cost to be similar to what I pay today.

I'm self-employed as a defender of earth from aliens. My contract requires 24/7/365.

Someone with a better understanding of the business of cable can probably explain this but I have a sense that if we went to an a la carte model the price wouldn't change much, the options would. I would think the infrastructure of delivering cable requires a certain cost and that, not the channels themselves, is what is driving the pricing. Right now I have several hundred channels of which I watch about 20. If I wanted to select the 20 I watch and only those 20 what would the cost be per channel? I would expect it to spike making my cable package roughly the same cost it is today.

Yes and no, IMO.

Carriage fees (the money cable providers pay channels) are pretty expensive, and my understanding of the industry is that they're largely responsible for cable rates being as high as they are. This is a list of cable channels and their carriage fees from 2009. The fee listed is what the cable/satellite provider paid the network per subscriber per month. Three years ago, cable companies were paying $6.50 a month for every household they served, just for the right to transmit ESPN and FSN. Add another $0.50-$1.00 a month for each of ten channels like TNT, Disney, USA, and CNN, and things begin to spiral from there.

Obviously those rates are negotiable. When Fox launched their business channel several years ago, for instance, they gave cable companies a break on the FNC carriage fee if they agreed to carry Fox Business.

I agree with you about the consequences of a la carte programming, though. I think many people would end up spending about the same amount and getting less channels. Niche networks would have to jack their prices up sky high to make up for lost revenue.

An example: I love Fox Soccer Channel. Most people don't. I've switched cable companies because my previous provider didn't renew its contract to carry FSC. In an a la carte situation, I'd absolutely order Fox Soccer. If 95% of their current households dropped the channel, which seems likely, they'd have to make up that revenue somehow. That somehow would come out of my pocket.

I wouldn't subscribe to The Tennis Channel. Maybe my neighbor would. Maybe the guy next to him would subscribe to The Outdoor Network, and someone else would subscribe to BET Jazz. We'd all be paying out the wazoo for those specific channels because most people would drop them like they're Josh Hamilton and niche networks are a popup in Game 162.

Sadly I don't have a car (I take a bus in), so I'm really limited to how far I can get around Annandale, and I doubt the local KFC, Wendy's, Taco Bell or Mexican Chicken place will be playing it. MLB Gameday it is!

Are people really not willing to go to a bar at noon/1PM on a weekday? Assuming you don't have to be at work what's the big deal?

In BBC's case, and I'm sure others, the fact that she has children in whose care she has been entrusted kind of makes for a dealbreaker. It's one thing to watch the game at home while the lil'uns watch Phineas and Ferb in the next room. It's another to tell them not to touch the passed out man in the corner.

In BBC's case, and I'm sure others, the fact that she has children in whose care she has been entrusted kind of makes for a dealbreaker. It's one thing to watch the game at home while the lil'uns watch Phineas and Ferb in the next room. It's another to tell them not to touch the passed out man in the corner.

True. On the other hand kids are cheap drunks. Slip them a whiskey in the first inning and they'll be asleep by the third. That's just good parenting.